Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Posts Regarding Women Journalists Under Section 504 and 509 IPC - 2025-01-02

Court Cases & Legal News.

Digital Apologies Cannot Erase Crime: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Online Harassment

In a significant ruling for cyber jurisprudence in India, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S.Ve. Shekar, confirming his conviction for posting derogatory content against women journalists on social media. Justice P. Velmurugan underscored that in the digital age, spreading defamatory content cannot be excused simply by subsequent deletion or a public apology.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The case originated from a derogatory Facebook post shared by the petitioner, which targeted women journalists and public figures. The prosecution contended that the post was aimed at humiliating women in the media field, thereby disturbing public peace and tranquillity. While the petitioner argued that he merely forwarded the post without reading the contents—and deleted it as soon as he realized his error—the trial court found no merit in the claim, leading to his conviction under Sections 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel raised several procedural objections, focusing heavily on the admissibility of evidence. The primary argument was that the prosecution failed to produce a valid certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering the screenshot of the defamatory post inadmissible. Furthermore, the defense argued that the petitioner lacked the requisite mens rea (criminal intent) and had already demonstrated contrition by tendering an unconditional apology.

Conversely, the State argued that the petitioner’s actions spoke louder than his later claims of innocence. The government advocate highlighted the petitioner’s admission during cross-examination, noting that he was well aware of the contents before sharing them. The State asserted that for a public figure, the act of "forwarding" does not absolve one of the legal consequences of circulating defamatory material.

Legal Analysis and the Reach of Revisional Oversight

The High Court’s analysis centered on the limitations of revisional jurisdiction. Justice P. Velmurugan noted that a revisional court is not meant to re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court would unless there is gross perversity in the trial court’s findings.

On the issue of electronic evidence, the court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the authenticity of the post. It clarified that once the act of forwarding is admitted, and the context shows the accused was aware of the nature of the message, the lack of a formal Section 65-B certificate does not necessarily vitiate the entire trial if other corroborative evidence exists.

Key Observations

The judgment delivered critical insights on the nature of online harm:

• On the nature of intent: "Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same. Since there was agitation against the contents, he had tendered apology and removed the message from Facebook."
• On the inadequacy of apologies: "Mere tendering apology itself would not be sufficient. When once the contents are released and it is also seen by various persons, certainly, the image of the de-facto complainant and other journalists would be degraded and subsequent tendering apology will not remove the image from the public."
• On digital responsibility: "...it is unbelievable that after receiving certain response from the Facebook, the petitioner, without reading the contents, simply deleted his message."

A Warning for Digital Citizens

By confirming the conviction, the Madras High Court has sent a clear message regarding the accountability of public figures and individuals on social media platforms. The order implies that the instant nature of digital communication does not provide a buffer against the law. For the victim, the ruling serves as a vital affirmation that their reputation cannot be "undone" by a simple deletion button.

The Court has directed the trial court to secure the petitioner’s custody, though it granted a 90-day reprieve to allow the petitioner to seek legal recourse via a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The judgment stands as a landmark for the protection of women professionals from targeted vitriol in the digital public square.